Definition of "a reality"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2017, 12:15 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
Not *this* most poisonous tripe, if you don't mind, DelDLJ Dodgy

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2017, 03:16 AM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2017 03:31 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Definition of "a reality"
Thanks very much for the responses!

I think I haven't made myself very clear, so let me state a couple of things:

1) This discussion is of absolutely no practical importance. By the definitions I'm suggesting, this is almost certainly guaranteed. I totally understand if this means any particular person has no interest in discussing further. It is only meant to be a thought experiment. I should have opened with this, apologies! It is meant, however, to provide a framework in which the things theists suggest could be described in a coherent fashion rather than simply being word games.

2) I agree that's it's totally sensible to call reality/the universe the set of all things that exist. I'm not disputing that at all. What I'm actually suggesting here are ways of partitioning the universe into sub-realities, which are self-contained. Maybe I should call them sub-realities to avoid confusion. At the simplest level, there could be (say) a way of dividing the universe into two sub-realities so that anything in reality A can never interact, in any way, with anything in reality B, and vice versa. It may be the case that this isn't possible at all, of course.

Let me at least bring it into some sort of context. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that computer simulations produce something that exists independently, further to the physical processes involved. (This is of course conjecture, I'm not suggesting this does actually happen.) In other words, it manifests. What exactly it means to "exist" is the subject of another, very long discussion, so I'm not going to quibble about that. We'll just assume it means that the manifestation happens, somehow.

We cannot directly interact with these manifestations. We can only interact with the physical processes that are producing them. However, by tinkering with our simulation, we do indirectly affect the manifestation. For example, if I suddenly alter a line of code which changes one of the rules which governs how the program runs, I have screwed with everything going on in there.

Would this count under the above definition for partioning the universe into sub-realities? They are both still self-contained, but there is an external dependency. I think it would still make sense to partition them, in some way.

This also tackles the idea of the "supernatural", to a degree. If there is a load of things going on which we can never interact with, and can never interact with what we perceive as reality, then that could be one definition for supernatural: a different partition. However, if the supernatural can affect us but not the other way around, this produces a kind of layered/nested situation. We would be a sub-reality within all of existence, in a similar way to the computer simulation being affected by programmers but not vice versa. It could be the case that "the supernatural" can freely fuck with our sub-reality as much as it likes, subject to no rules, but still obeys its own rules in its own sub-reality.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
18-06-2017, 03:23 AM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2017 03:28 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(17-06-2017 01:08 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(17-06-2017 11:04 AM)Goshine Wrote:  Get real, RobValue. Seems like you're not the least bit interested in discussing reality; but rather, just enough to justify your preconceived notions about what theists believe. Until you start to stand on your own for what you believe about reality, regardless of what theists think, then no one will take you and your silly video collection of amateurish hack philosophy seriously.

Some of us enjoy watching Robvalue's videos. And why should philosophy students try to browbeat others? We've seen that before. It ends badly.

Thank you Smile

I like discussing a range of things. Sometimes I am discussing reality, sometimes not. I'd say more often than not I'm at least trying to bring another discussion into the realm of reality. I can't imagine this guy has watched many of my videos if he thinks otherwise.

This topic, as I should have made clear initially, is entirely abstract and as such may not be of interest to a lot of people. I'm not going to let guys like this stop me discussing it with those that wish to. Even if it's no-one. I'll discuss it with myself. I'd like to see him stop that!

And believe me, I've tried very hard to discuss with theists and watched tons of videos, in an attempt to make sense of what their claims even mean in ways that don't need such drastic action in order to interpret.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
18-06-2017, 04:01 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
Since the prosecution brought up my YouTube channel, I have the right to cross-examine. It turns out I have quite a variety* on my channel, as broken down below.

Channel name: Robvalue
Subscribers: 26
Public videos: 90

Breakdown of public videos

Political: 2
Singing: 10
Personal: 4
Gaming: 2
Scientific: 9
Comedy: 26
Pets: 10
Atheism/religion: 5
Philosophy: 11
Playing organ: 11


*of bullshit

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2017, 04:27 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(18-06-2017 03:16 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  What I'm actually suggesting here are ways of partitioning the universe into sub-realities, which are self-contained. Maybe I should call them sub-realities to avoid confusion.

To a fair extent, the Earth is a subreality created by life for its own benefit: the atmosphere, the geology, the coevolution, the specialization, the infrastructure and so on. It only works as long as it is largely isolated from the forces of the universe.

That would make, say, the Palestinian situation a subreality of a subreality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
18-06-2017, 09:46 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(18-06-2017 12:09 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(17-06-2017 09:30 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I see the Brit's been eating the moldy ergot bread again this morning. Smile


Which would mean that we have discovered the boundaries of reality since we have discovered the inherent limitations of measurement.
...

Until some bright spark of the future realises that we've all been watching shadows on the cave wall.


Angel

Billy Pilgrim?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2017, 10:05 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(17-06-2017 02:42 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  So how do we define a reality?

My definition of reality is: That which can be experienced by a sentient being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(18-06-2017 03:16 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Thanks very much for the responses!

I think I haven't made myself very clear, so let me state a couple of things:

1) This discussion is of absolutely no practical importance. By the definitions I'm suggesting, this is almost certainly guaranteed. I totally understand if this means any particular person has no interest in discussing further. It is only meant to be a thought experiment. I should have opened with this, apologies! It is meant, however, to provide a framework in which the things theists suggest could be described in a coherent fashion rather than simply being word games.

2) I agree that's it's totally sensible to call reality/the universe the set of all things that exist. I'm not disputing that at all. What I'm actually suggesting here are ways of partitioning the universe into sub-realities, which are self-contained. Maybe I should call them sub-realities to avoid confusion. At the simplest level, there could be (say) a way of dividing the universe into two sub-realities so that anything in reality A can never interact, in any way, with anything in reality B, and vice versa. It may be the case that this isn't possible at all, of course.

Let me at least bring it into some sort of context. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that computer simulations produce something that exists independently, further to the physical processes involved. (This is of course conjecture, I'm not suggesting this does actually happen.) In other words, it manifests. What exactly it means to "exist" is the subject of another, very long discussion, so I'm not going to quibble about that. We'll just assume it means that the manifestation happens, somehow.

We cannot directly interact with these manifestations. We can only interact with the physical processes that are producing them. However, by tinkering with our simulation, we do indirectly affect the manifestation. For example, if I suddenly alter a line of code which changes one of the rules which governs how the program runs, I have screwed with everything going on in there.

Would this count under the above definition for partioning the universe into sub-realities? They are both still self-contained, but there is an external dependency. I think it would still make sense to partition them, in some way.

This also tackles the idea of the "supernatural", to a degree. If there is a load of things going on which we can never interact with, and can never interact with what we perceive as reality, then that could be one definition for supernatural: a different partition. However, if the supernatural can affect us but not the other way around, this produces a kind of layered/nested situation. We would be a sub-reality within all of existence, in a similar way to the computer simulation being affected by programmers but not vice versa. It could be the case that "the supernatural" can freely fuck with our sub-reality as much as it likes, subject to no rules, but still obeys its own rules in its own sub-reality.

Sounds like you're talking about bubbles.












There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
19-06-2017, 12:47 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2017 12:55 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Definition of "a reality"
I have to admit, this idea sounded more interesting in my head. Now I realise there isn't a whole lot to say about it.

I'm kind of fascinated by the idea of emergent subrealities, but of course it falls outside the scope of things we could test for.

(Maybe it could be said that I actually spend all my time in an abstractly emergent phenomenological subreality from which I can only assume that there is a matching source.)

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
22-06-2017, 01:17 PM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
Alfred Jarry - Pataphysics

Imaginary solutions to imaginary problems.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: